Interaction Design · Project 1 of 3 · Weeks 1–5
ID Project 3: Design for Community Resilience
Design as civic act — one community, one need, one well-considered artifact
FORMAT
Individual
WEEKS
10-15
METHODS
Community research · Primary interviews · Empathy mapping · Persona development · Low-fidelity prototyping · User testing · Quantitative data analysis · Iterative revision · Studio exhibition presentation · Process book documentation
TAGS
Community, Human Rights, Design Thinking, Design Education, Interaction
Why this project
This project concludes the semester by integrating all prior learning. It draws on the affordance thinking from Project 1, the systems thinking and evidence-based iteration from Project 2, and the comprehensive human-centered design process, all in response to an actual community need.
The project combines theoretical understanding with practical application. Norman's affordances framework guides students to assess whether their artifact clearly indicates its use without instructions. Sanders and Stappers' participatory design framework encourages students to go beyond simple user testing, fostering genuine community co-creation. Putnam's social capital theory helps students analyze whether they are designing to strengthen bonding capital—connections within a group—or bridging capital—links across different groups—and why this choice impacts their artifact. Miller and Sweller's cognitive load research provides a basis for understanding why simplicity is an equity issue: in stressful situations, complexity can hinder action.
Victor Papanek's ethical stance—that designers have a moral obligation to address real human needs rather than merely serving market interests—frames the project’s moral perspective. The WPA poster artists of the 1930s used public design to fight isolation during the Depression. The creators behind 211 developed a system so intuitive it could be remembered in a crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, mutual aid networks exemplified effective information design. This tradition is what students are choosing to follow. Design is not a profession. It is a practice of empathy — the sustained effort to understand real people, real needs, and real conditions before reaching for a solution. Moholy-Nagy called it an attitude. I would go further: it is a responsibility, not an aesthetic preference.
The Brief
PROJECT PROMPT
Geopolitical conflicts, energy issues, and emerging global food shortages are changing daily life. These are not distant problems—they influence whether your neighbor can buy groceries, if an elderly person can reach a medical appointment, and if a newcomer family knows where to find help. Communities face increasing pressures, and people are seeking ways to support each other.
Design strikes its strongest chord when it responds to its time. This project asks a straightforward yet serious question: what will you do with your skills?
Identify a community need. Create an artifact—digital, physical, or both—that supports a specific community in a particular way. Test it with real users and then refine it based on feedback. Document your process and outcomes as a design case study for the studio showcase.
You are not tasked with solving the food crisis. Instead, you are designing a thoughtfully conceived artifact that aids one community in one specific way, improving current support systems.
DELIVERABLE
SA8: Community Research + Medium Proposal — secondary and primary research, key insight statement, medium justified through evidence
SA9: Empathy Map + Persona — grounded in interview and observation data
Low-fidelity prototype: minimum 8 components, screens, or panels — must be testable
Round 1 user testing: observation data and survey data (Likert scale, 1–5), means calculated, top problems identified
Round 2 user testing with revised prototype: same data structure
Statistical comparison: improvement across iterations, calculated
Final artifact: complete, portfolio-ready, in medium appropriate to community need
Studio exhibition presentation: process case study — research, testing, data, iteration, final design
Process book documentation: the full arc from research to final artifact
What I've learned from running this
This project underscores the argument developed throughout the semester. Students, who have tested and iterated since Week One, already know how to present a prototype to a real person and observe reactions. The methodology remains familiar. What is new are the stakes, since the community members they work with have genuine needs, and their design decisions have real consequences, even if small.
A key aspect is the requirement for a non-predetermined medium, which consistently sparks the most engaging design thinking all semester. Students initially believe they are creating an app, but often discover through research that the community has limited smartphone access, that a printed flyer at the laundromat is the most trusted source of information, or that people's real need isn't a new tool but a clearer explanation of an existing one. These insights rarely occur in front of a computer; they emerge through conversations, observations, and identifying the gap between designer assumptions and community experiences.
By week 11, Papanek's argument resonates differently than in week 1. Students who have developed physical mechanisms, created game systems, and tested their designs with real users are prepared to recognize that design involves moral implications. They have already faced situations in which a design failure — such as a jamming mechanism, unclear rules, or a confusing prototype — affects real people. The community resilience project elevates this awareness, presenting it to the most serious audience with the highest stakes.
The studio exhibition — a pitch where students present their process as a case study — is pedagogically distinct from a standard critique. Students are required to explain not just what they made but why each decision was made, what evidence guided each revision, and what they would do differently in a future iteration. This accountability to process, evidence, and honest self-assessment represents the course's culminating skill.
